Toronto Escorts

Do you trust Annan ?

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
He knows the gig is over. Stick a fork in him already.

The first reform step to be taken is the dismissal of this corrupt bastard. If they can't accomplish that much then there isn't much value in trusting the UN and the US would do well to give it the boot. Get that crook behind bars and perhaps some suggestions to improving the way the UN works might be in order. That is, to make suggestions to actually get it to work. What was linked to is ludicrous without the first step.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
I recall NR did an article on that crook recently, so here's a few choice snippets. The House is clearly not impressed and the continued intrasigence from these UN people isn't exactly furthering their cause. Better yet, if they refuse to answer simply issue a subpoena - show up or get out.

It was not without reason that this body so strongly opposed the US lead coalition's removal of Iraq's sultan. So far the numbers are staggering and this is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

As for the Oil for Food scandal, it is more than just the biggest scandal in the U.N.'s history; it may well be the biggest financial fraud in modern times. Set up in the mid-1990s as a means of providing humanitarian aid to Iraqis, the Oil for Food program was subverted and manipulated by Saddam Hussein's regime, allegedly with the complicity of U.N. officials, to help prop up the Iraqi dictator. Saddam's dictatorship was able to siphon an estimated $21.3 billion from the program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, by demanding illegal payments from companies buying Iraqi oil and kickbacks from those selling goods to Iraq. All this took place under the noses of U.N. bureaucrats: According to the report of U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, Benon Sevan — Annan's appointee as executive director of the Iraq program — received from Saddam a voucher for 13 million barrels of oil.

[...]

Annan needs to control the inquiry because he can ill afford further blows to his reputation. It is inconceivable that he was unaware of the scale of the fraud being carried out by Saddam Hussein; this, combined with Annan's record of failure over Iraq, his lack of commitment to confronting terrorism, and his rapidly declining credibility as a leader on the world stage, amounts to a powerful case for his resignation. Indeed, the man who did nothing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda when he was head of U.N. peacekeeping operations in the mid-1990s has been woefully out of depth ever since his appointment as secretary general in 1997. Annan has been a shameless appeaser of dictators, and his only legacy will be his organization's growing irrelevance.

If Annan were the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, with his organization facing allegations of serious corruption and mismanagement and a massive congressional investigation, he would have been forced to resign months ago. Only in a bloated bureaucracy such as the U.N., where a culture of arrogance and unaccountability has reigned for decades, can a leader remain in power in the face of such turmoil. Fortunately, the great sense of moral outrage on Capitol Hill over the Oil for Food scandal may bring this culture to an end. It is only a matter of time before senior senators and congressmen call for Annan's resignation. Congress holds the purse strings of U.S. funding for the U.N., and if it chooses to, it can force changes even in this most hidebound of institutions.
NB: ice dog, this is a subscription site and thus unlinkable.
 

*d*

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
1,621
12
38
'Do you trust Annan?'
A simple answer --yes. The man wants to make changes and close the loop holes on UN corruption. He what's a more balanced world view within the Security Council. And I fully agree with him. And if his oil-for-food scandal has generated such changes then I can only see good coming from it.
 

ice_dog

Member
Jan 13, 2002
667
0
16
I trust his intentions and his views, but I doubt he has the political will and conviction. Case in point, the situation in DAFFUR is completely out of control and nobody has taken the initiative to address this issue.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
Don't you get it? You are taking heat for spamming up threads with useless garbage. The purpose of this section is discussion, of which you seem to never actually partake in. And yea, it also applies to links: link and run is almost as annoying as spam and run.

bornonaug9 said:
It also applies to links and I see your personal bias Peeping Tom.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
The terrorism convention is what will prompt the US to walk. Several attempts have been made, primarily by our "allies" across the pond, including the Geneva revision which the US could not ratify. Attempting to do the same will be the UN's undoing - Annan might believe himself to be Mustafa Mond, but free men see a used car salesman and treat him accordingly. Last thing the UN needs is to let Annan anywhere near the topic of terrorism.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
What's not to trust. After all every program concerning Iraq, under him, was run with out any problems. The has never been any suspicion of corruption or even that his son was made rich from it. He is a pillar in the foundation of the UN. I trust him with my life and wealth the same as I would Bill or Hillery Clinton.
 
Last edited:

*d*

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
1,621
12
38
Peeping Tom said:
The terrorism convention is what will prompt the US to walk. Several attempts have been made, primarily by our "allies" across the pond, including the Geneva revision which the US could not ratify. Attempting to do the same will be the UN's undoing - Annan might believe himself to be Mustafa Mond, but free men see a used car salesman and treat him accordingly. Last thing the UN needs is to let Annan anywhere near the topic of terrorism.
The only reason the US will walk away from the terrorism convention is because the US is losing grip of UN control. Annan wants a more common world view on how to handle terrorism. The US wants only their own self-centred view and their own destructive way of handling it. Annan sees a 5 point strategy to fight terrorism which includes defending human rights and dissuading people from resorting to terrorism. That may sound like something the US would support, but the most effective way to persuade people not to resort to terrorism is take away the source of their grievances to begin with. That's something the US will never do, nor even recognize. As far as defending human rights; the US wants to use the word terrorism to abuse human rights, not defend it. Another issue is the UN funding of foreign assistance. Annan wants 0.7% of each state member's gross national income for foreign development assistance. The US is fighting this as they stand now at only 0.18%. Their idea of foreign funding is through their false use of military action; all in the name of terrorism.
 

*d*

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
1,621
12
38
This is interesting article from the UK Independent, Dec 12/04

The Oil-For-Food 'Scandal' is a Cynical Smokescreen
by Scott Ritter

United States Senators, led by the Republican Norm Coleman, have launched a crusade of sorts, seeking to "expose" the oil-for-food programme implemented by the United Nations from 1996 until 2003 as the "greatest scandal in the history of the UN". But this posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bush's self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimise the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption, and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse.

The oil-for-food programme was derived from the US-sponsored Security Council resolution, passed in April 1995 but not implemented until December 1996. During this time, the CIA sponsored two coup attempts against Saddam, the second, most famously, a joint effort with the British that imploded in June 1996, at the height of the "oil for food" implementation negotiations. The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States - regime change.

Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey as well as fellow regime-change plotters in Kurdistan. At the same time as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was negotiating with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov concerning a Russian-brokered deal to end a stand-off between Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors in October-November 1997, the United States turned a blind eye to the establishment of a Russian oil company set up on Cyprus.

This oil company, run by Primakov's sister, bought oil from Iraq under "oil for food" at a heavy discount, and then sold it at full market value to primarily US companies, splitting the difference evenly with Primakov and the Iraqis. This US-sponsored deal resulted in profits of hundreds of million of dollars for both the Russians and Iraqis, outside the control of "oil for food". It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under "oil for food" ended up in the United States.

Likewise, using its veto-wielding powers on the 661 Committee, set up in 1990 to oversee economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States was able to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the provisions of the oil-for-food agreement. And when Saddam proved too adept at making money from kickbacks, the US and Britain devised a new scheme of oil sales which forced potential buyers to commit to oil contracts where the price would be set after the oil was sold, an insane process which quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food programme of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the United Nations.

The corruption evident in the oil-for-food programme was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.

While money derived from the off-the-book sale of oil did indeed go into the purchase of conventional weapons and the construction of presidential palaces, the vast majority of these funds were poured into economic recovery programmes that saw Iraq emerge from near total economic ruin in 1996. By 2002, on the eve of the US-led invasion, Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks. Compare and contrast that image with the reality of Baghdad today, and the ultimate corruption that was the oil-for-food programme becomes self-evident.

Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998)
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
Trusting Annan is the same as any other political figure. It depends on what side you are on. Just like it always is trusting/believing any political figure. I personally have very little faith in most politicans. You can find dirt on anyone. And you can always dig up articles to support anyone. I trust Annan slightly more than I trust Bush.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
USA and Japan (#1 and #2 in UN funding) by themselves contribute close to ~50% of the UN budget.

With that, the US is considered stingy and cheap and Japan isn't even allowed to be on the UN security council
 

n_v

Banned
Aug 26, 2001
2,006
0
36
Don said:
USA and Japan (#1 and #2 in UN funding) by themselves contribute close to ~50% of the UN budget.

With that, the US is considered stingy and cheap and Japan isn't even allowed to be on the UN security council
Where do you get your figures from?
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
n_v said:
Where do you get your figures from?
Mainly from memory. I remember seeing the numbers when reading an article on Japan wanting to scale back funding because they keep getting reject for the council. Let me see if I can dig it up again.
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
2
0
The Middle Kingdom
papasmerf said:
What's not to trust. After all every program concerning Iraq, under him, was run with out any problems. The has never been any suspicion of corruption or even that his son was made rich from it. He is a pillar in the foundation of the UN. I trust him with my life and wealth the same as I would Bill or Hillery Clinton.
lmfao!

Absolutely! I would trust the man with my life too, not to mention my children's future and all of my tax dollars, just the same way I would trust Jean Cretien. :D
 

*d*

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
1,621
12
38
bbking said:
What a load of bull - linking human rights with terrorism. Where do you dream up this crap? It's foolish people like yourself that make it impossible for any sensible solution to be found.

Tell me when China, France, Germany and Russia sign up for Annan's .79% and then maybe you have something to complain about - until then leave your bull shit anti-American crap at the door.


bbk
Wake up bb. When you know what you're talking about then you can call people foolish. But in the mean time take a look at Annan's proposed 5 point strategy to fight terrorism. It includes protecting human rights. Now where do you think I get the idea that the US is abusing human rights in the name of fighting terrorism? How many examples do you want?
As for meeting the 0.7% target of GNI for foreign aid --the US flat out bucks the idea. Other countries at least agree to it, but may not be able to promise anything --some may even need assistance themselves. France has pledged to reach the 0.7% target by 2012.
 
Toronto Escorts